NZ and broken records...

Please don't have a pop at me, i'm just making a point, and tipping the hat to a friend of mine who has been banging a drum for a few years.

U20 WC 2/3 years ago? Smallblacks lose their first ever game (V Wales?) and a friend of mine (who is Welsh) stands in a cold dark Welsh pub in Cardiff (have no idea of the name) and has gathered a small crowd of people.

Now everyone has had a few, although he does keep following this up on the odd occasion, but he starts in on the NZRFU...

He says in 100 years time the NZ public are going to be just where the Welsh public are now, a proud but fruitless rugby power, reminising about past glories as current performances shadow their former teams. He says they will pinpoint this day in their history was the turning point, where superpowers from the rugby world in England, France and SA would start to dominate the junior game, and slowly roll that domination into the senior game.

He starts in on a nostradamus style prediction, where all forms of rugby in NZ starts to fall away from total domination and into the pack.

His first few predictions were NZ not winning the current U20 WC, or the next 2/3, of which they would have their worst ever performance. (He didn't mention home soil)

Then he went onto record losses for the senior side in the NH and SH, a poor 4N tournament before the 2015 WC where they would finish 3rd, and a poor 2015 WC.

He says NZ women would fall off top spot by 2015, and Englands money and power would be realised at this level.

He says NZ 7's also would fall into the pack, and SA and England would take the top spots, and possibly compete the final of the olympics in Rio.


Now I know this all sounds like guff, and anti NZRFU, I assure you I am not, as I have assured the English and French I am not anti them on my euro comp, and have assured I am not anti Welsh or IRish on my Rabo comments.

But this friend messaged me the other day (I havn't seen him in a year or so) to highlight NZ's first ever CW games loss (He didn't mention that in his initial predictions btw) and it got me thinking, has he made a point worth making, or is it just the ramblings of a bitter tipsy and at the time jubilent welshman?

I have looked into results etc, and findings are worrying...

NZ won the 2011 U20 WC, They lost one game on way to the final 2012 then lost the final tick
2013 NZ didn't place whatsoever = worst WC tick
2014 NZ third place on home soil = unthinkable for a NZ team not to be a contender on home soil.

Englands big win in England aside (under virus) I think the NZ senior results are contradicting his predictions so far!

NZ women are still top spot in the world rankings, although havn't they lost 3 of their last 10 games where England have won 12 on the bounce?

The message i received the other day was with regards to the CW games first ever loss, he never mentioned it originally but uses it to prove his point.

Like I said, this isn't an anti NZ thread, but there is very slight proof that maybe the rest of the world are catching up with the team who have dominated the sport in every aspect for 100 years? Or is this just where the games and teams peak and trough? and is this a trough for NZ despite nearly winning everything (scary or what)?

It's obvious that NZ can only go down from total domination, and it's amazing that such a small country has dominated the sport for so long, but are the big money players of France, England and SA ready to take that mantel on?

To be honest, I am not too perturbed about what will happen in the future, too many variations to think of, right now is important, and right now, they are quite a bit ahead.

Like I said, this isn't an anti NZ thread, but there is very slight proof that maybe the rest of the world are catching up with the team who have dominated the sport in every aspect for 100 years? Or is this just where the games and teams peak and trough? and is this a trough for NZ despite nearly winning everything (scary or what)?

Thats the interesting question, part of me wants to believe that the rest of the world are improving, the game has been professional for longer and sides are starting to get their act together, in the beginning of the professional era only NZ and England really had a professional setup. Now with academies and so on, players are now being brought up as professional athletes. And in my opinion its only a good thing, one thing Football has over Rugby is its general unpredictability.

They won't be as dominant but they'll still be up there for a long time. They won't be as dominant because other teams will catch up IMO.

You friend from the pub seemed to base his argument on the size of nations. Its more complicated than that. You need to be well organised, have a big squad etc. NZ are maximising their talent now but its harder for bigger countries to do that. There's more politics involved especially when money is involved.


One thing I predict is coaches will be more important in the future. As teams improve and many top teams can beat each other it'll be the coaches game plan that will decide things.

There's no doubt that New Zealand could fall back into the pack, so to speak, and most of the ways that could happen have been aired over the years on these forums.

Money can only take you so far, though, as any England football supporter can testify. Football, of course, has just seen the humbling of Brazil, which is a reminder than no-one ought to take success for granted.

On that matter, I don't think New Zealand does take rugby dominance for granted. Perhaps World Cup disappointments have helped keep everyone on their toes. A lot of it is surely down to the fact they always think hard about how to play the game, and can quickly come up with smart conclusions.

I think back to when England had a good run in cricket, and some predicted continued dominance. I never got the impression that we were constantly trying to improve. Of course, we said we were, but British sporting success stories are usually about getting to the top rather than staying at the top.

One of the problems Welsh rugby faced during its fall from grace from the pomp of the seventies, is that there was no real period of self-examination which brought forward new coaching and training ideas.

New Zealand has never lost that desire to improve and reinvent. It doesn't mean they will continue to dominate the sport as it grows but they won't be also-rans. That would only happen if the country falls out of love with the sport.

Why would a poster have to constantly say "I'm not anti-'insert nationality'" here unless there was some agenda? Strange.

In 100 years time?  That's a long time.

Not sure the NZers can be written off after a loss or two.

There's a significant difference between the seniors and U20s.

England in particular have had a problem bridging the gap despite having one of the best U20s sides since 2008.

Having a smaller player pool can help because you can nurture that player pool better - it also leads to developing quicker.

The opposite happens with England's playing pool - you'll find that a lot of the England U20s 2014 winning squad will struggle for gametime in the AP.

The NZers have utilised the rule that you can only play for NZ if you play in NZ effectively. The Super XV is also a very good competition because it consists of the best from Australia, South Africa and NZ which helps maintain high standards.

I feel that if the likes of England and France want to catch up to the likes of NZ we need to send more of our players to Super XV and they need to make the grade.

England in football need to do the same - challenge themselves in the likes of the Bundesliga etc.

Cyril wrote:Why would a poster have to constantly say "I'm not anti-'insert nationality'" here unless there was some agenda? Strange.

Because it's highly tedious to have someone bypass your entire argument by simply waving you away as anti-so and so for no good reason.

Ex. I don't have to listen to anything you say because you're anti-Welsh  

Agree with Biltong, there's so much to take into account when contemplating the long term future. All we have to go on is what has happened up to now, which continues to point to NZ and SA being the runaways in most forms of rugby.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would a poster have to constantly say "I'm not anti-'insert nationality'" here unless there was some agenda? Strange.

Because it's highly tedious to have someone bypass your entire argument by simply waving you away as anti-so and so for no good reason.

Ex. I don't have to listen to anything you say because you're anti-Welsh  

He's basically invented a Welsh person in order to counteract something that was never said and show how great NZ are. It's pretty similar to his old tactics.

He's also decided to ignore the England win because of the 'virus'.

Some things never change. If it looks like a and boos like a it probably is one.

Cyril does make a point, if I keep needing to apologies for what looks like anti Wales, Ireland, England, France, NZ comments, maybe I am just being too negative in general.

Point taken Cyril, although not sure why i'm a ghost, or was that meant to be a troll?

Although on rereading it looks like he thinks i'm pro NZ, not sure how he got there.

I didn't ignore the win, I said Englands record win aside NZ's results have been good

Well they won't lose a test this year..... again.
 
No one thought the Henry class of 04-11 could be improved... they were wrong.
 
Quite simply as long as they continue to get an influx of migrants from the PI's (who are with the boere the ultimate physical specimens for rugby and type sports) and as long as the sport gets first tabs on youngsters then they will remain there or there abouts.
 
The problem with rugby elsewhere around the world is that its a secondary sport. Other sports get preference. Football nabs the most talented kids aged 8-9.... few kids play rugby at that age in Europe.
 
The biggest block for NZ is probably the NRL. If it loses kids to that then sure they will suffer like everyone else.
Thus far the NZRU have been masters at controlling their players and only those surplus to requirements ever jump ship.
 
If England & France (pop 60+MM), SA (pop +50MM) and AUS (pop 20MM) turn the sport into a leading one where like NZ they get the first pick of the best kids then sure, NZ will struggle as they will be able to flex their demographic muscle.
 
However those things probably won't happen completely. But with UK & France's pop (mainly in England) meant to hit 80MM by the end of the century i.e. another 20MM people to chose from compared to NZ maybe to add another 2-3MM its likely that their talent pool will simply outgrow that of NZ's.
 
Yet didn't everyone say this at the dawn of professionalism? 20 years later they're still at the top.

So what if that flow of PI players stopped, or slowed considerably?

There is a lot of competition for PI talent, something NZ hasn't had to contend with in it's history, could this competition lead to a fall in PI talent showing out for NZ?

In the medium term, NZ's biggest danger is players leaving. They can generally keep the best with the exception of a few. However if European clubs are going to get even wealthier then they'll start targeting NZ's best players and the carrot might be too big to resist for many players.

PI migrantion may stem but their children now living in NZ will produce world class athlete's born for rugby type sports. Genes don't simply stop the moment they move location. With the professional setup in place in NZ, the talent has been harnessed.
 
Look at Faletau and the Vunipolas in the UK.
 
Thats 3 guys from probably a tiny number of individuals who have become top class internationals. Its more than simply them being exposed to the sport from a young age.

fa0019 wrote:PI migrantion may stem but their children now living in NZ will produce world class athlete's born for rugby type sports. Genes don't simply stop the moment they move location. With the professional setup in place in NZ, the talent has been harnessed.
 
Look at Faletau and the Vunipolas in the UK.
 
Thats 3 guys from probably a tiny number of individuals who have become top class internationals. Its more than simply them being exposed to the sport from a young age.

my point was more migration patterns of the already born in the PI, those who show ability and are then offered scholarships...

Nothing goes on for ever so Nz lost there Common Wealth 7`s title the FIRST GAME lost
in 5 Games by a single try.Since the World series 7`s began NZ have lost I think 3 series
out of god knows how many.
Nz IS a PI most players of PI extraction are dual qualified BUT who would choose between
being a tier2 cap or an All Black?NZ wanted discards to available for there own sides IRB
rejected it.
Because your side doesn't win a Tournament butwins most of its games does that mean there
all bad players?of course not.
Nz will have a losing run but will it be as bad as 1991,98,or 2009?or just a ripple like 2004
and 2008.?
There Super Rugby teams have may not won the Tournament this year BUT there sides
were the most competitive this year.
You can write them off if you like BUT they have for most of the time been THE best team
in World Rugby since 1987.
That includes 12-3/4 Ns,11or 12 Super titles,2 RWCs,twice as many wins v Sa and Aus
as the two combined.
Yes expec t 4Ns.,RWC,and other losses and Super ones,7`s,Juniors,Womans etc.BUT
don`t expect it for long.
They will fall and rise again there troughs are often better than others peaks as long as
5 year olds of both sexes show skills that put test players skills to shame Nz will survive.

fa0019 wrote:
Look at Faletau and the Vunipolas in the UK.
 
Thats 3 guys from probably a tiny number of individuals who have become top class internationals. Its more than simply them being exposed to the sport from a young age.

How many Arabs or Indians have played for England? Probably none. Culture plays a big part in it. Only South Africans, New Zealand and Pacific islanders really care about rugby as nations.

profitius wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Look at Faletau and the Vunipolas in the UK.
 
Thats 3 guys from probably a tiny number of individuals who have become top class internationals. Its more than simply them being exposed to the sport from a young age.

How many Arabs or Indians have played for England? Probably none. Culture plays a big part in it. Only South Africans, New Zealand and Pacific islanders really care about rugby as nations.

Bar Monty Panasarr how many represent England at cricket? Sorry very off topic, just curious

As the titles their teams have lost have in the main gone to England or SA, I’d put that down to those two getting more organised and professional in learning to harness their resources and talent.  

I do however think NZ is facing more significant competition or threat from the NRL, European & Japanese rugby and migration patterns than they have previously had to navigate.  

One of our papers recently tallied up the origin of NRL first graders to see what the primary development paths of the NRL were.  17% of players (roughly 70 people) were recruited directly from NZ schools / clubs which is the highest ever contribution.  The proportion of players born in NZ, Tonga, Samoa and Fiji but raised in Australia is also increasing which I would think reflects the changing migration patterns in the region.

Maybe those from the Glorious Empire could play huh !!!

    

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

profitius wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Look at Faletau and the Vunipolas in the UK.
 
Thats 3 guys from probably a tiny number of individuals who have become top class internationals. Its more than simply them being exposed to the sport from a young age.

How many Arabs or Indians have played for England? Probably none. Culture plays a big part in it. Only South Africans, New Zealand and Pacific islanders really care about rugby as nations.

Bar Monty Panasarr how many represent England at cricket?  Sorry very off topic, just curious

Assuming the question intended to mean "people of Indian/Arab descent" (since Panesar was born in that famous Indian town Luton ), there have actually been quite a few in recent times. Nasser Hussain is probably the most famous example, but off the top of my head there's also Saj Mahmood (played a few tests), Ajmal Shahzad (played one Test and a few ODIs, toured Australia in 10-11), Amjad Khan (played one Test, bit of a disaster this one if truth be told, and he was Danish anyway), Moeen Ali of course from the current team, Samit Patel (played several Tests and was for a while a regular member of the ODI and T20 teams). Can't think of any others off hand, but I may well have forgotten some.

Obviously going back (much) further you had the famous Nawab od Pataudi who's rather unique in that he played for both England and India...

As long as NZ have their pick of the Fijians, Samoans, Tongans etc they'll be just fine     

On a serious note i see one of the young Skeltons 145kg etc has left the Waratahs and gone to the chiefs. Is this a view of him playing for NZ?

Could the brothers play against each other in the future in Oz v NZ.....

Neutralee wrote:Please don't have a pop at me, i'm just making a point, and tipping the hat to a friend of mine who has been banging a drum for a few years.

U20 WC 2/3 years ago? Smallblacks lose their first ever game (V Wales?) and a friend of mine (who is Welsh) stands in a cold dark Welsh pub in Cardiff (have no idea of the name) and has gathered a small crowd of people.

Now everyone has had a few, although he does keep following this up on the odd occasion, but he starts in on the NZRFU...

He says in 100 years time the NZ public are going to be just where the Welsh public are now, a proud but fruitless rugby power, reminising about past glories as current performances shadow their former teams. He says they will pinpoint this day in their history was the turning point, where superpowers from the rugby world in England, France and SA would start to dominate the junior game, and slowly roll that domination into the senior game.

He starts in on a nostradamus style prediction, where all forms of rugby in NZ starts to fall away from total domination and into the pack.

His first few predictions were NZ not winning the current U20 WC, or the next 2/3, of which they would have their worst ever performance. (He didn't mention home soil)

Then he went onto record losses for the senior side in the NH and SH, a poor 4N tournament before the 2015 WC where they would finish 3rd, and a poor 2015 WC.

He says NZ women would fall off top spot by 2015, and Englands money and power would be realised at this level.

He says NZ 7's also would fall into the pack, and SA and England would take the top spots, and possibly compete the final of the olympics in Rio.


Now I know this all sounds like guff, and anti NZRFU, I assure you I am not, as I have assured the English and French I am not anti them on my euro comp, and have assured I am not anti Welsh or IRish on my Rabo comments.

But this friend messaged me the other day (I havn't seen him in a year or so) to highlight NZ's first ever CW games loss (He didn't mention that in his initial predictions btw) and it got me thinking, has he made a point worth making, or is it just the ramblings of a bitter tipsy and at the time jubilent welshman?

I have looked into results etc, and findings are worrying...

NZ won the 2011 U20 WC, They lost one game on way to the final 2012 then lost the final tick
2013 NZ didn't place whatsoever = worst WC tick
2014 NZ third place on home soil = unthinkable for a NZ team not to be a contender on home soil.

Englands big win in England aside (under virus) I think the NZ senior results are contradicting his predictions so far!

NZ women are still top spot in the world rankings, although havn't they lost 3 of their last 10 games where England have won 12 on the bounce?

The message i received the other day was with regards to the CW games first ever loss, he never mentioned it originally but uses it to prove his point.

Like I said, this isn't an anti NZ thread, but there is very slight proof that maybe the rest of the world are catching up with the team who have dominated the sport in every aspect for 100 years? Or is this just where the games and teams peak and trough? and is this a trough for NZ despite nearly winning everything (scary or what)?

It's obvious that NZ can only go down from total domination, and it's amazing that such a small country has dominated the sport for so long, but are the big money players of France, England and SA ready to take that mantel on?

Apart from the Rugby World Cup which you have far from dominated. Bubble burst.

Neutralee, Your Welsh friend wouldnt happen to be Stephen Jones, Would it?

RW
 
Actually you make a good point.
 
NZ did not dominate the sport in the amateur era. They were level if not slightly behind the springboks who had a winning record against every team up to professionalism.
 
When the game went professional in 1996 the boks had played NZ 42 times. They had won 21 and lost 18. SA had a better home % win and a better away % win rate than NZ. They had also won a series away in NZ which NZ only achieved in 1996 (8 months into professionalism). Each had won a world cup.
 
In terms of who was the best team in history up until professionalism in 1996... if it was anyone, it was the springboks end of. You can give reasons etc into why they lost but it doesn't take away the fact that the best team of the 20th century was the boks.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Neutralee, Your Welsh friend wouldnt happen to be Stephen Jones, Would it?

It was not, if you are refering to the journalist, and it was not the old fly half either lol

fa

You make a very good point, SA's stats might prove them to have dominated the amateur era, however I do not remember getting excited to watch SA play anyone over the last 50 years, there was always brand fearn with the haka and Lomu and Cullen...

So you may be more right in your statement that SA were the better team in the 20th century, however NZ were the ones everyone wanted to see, they were regarded as the best were they not?

I always marvelled and disliked the haka as a boy, it was a great spectacle, but it was 50% psychological advantage, and 50% brand marketting, I disliked that the PI's had their own yet noone gave a shoite.

I disliked hearing that NZRFU had injuctioned Neath RFC for the name the All Blacks, because it impeded their brand campaign, I disliked the euphoria surrounding the All Blacks for no other reason than promoting a brand.

Mad For Chelsea - thanks for that, and I did mean people of decent not birth. I was just curious because sorting preference does seem to hereditary.

Over a century when 1 team wins 21 matches and the other 18 you can hardly call it domination... but slightly ahead of a 2 way tug of war.
 
People didn't like the boks mainly because of the way SA was portrayed for years, apartheid loving, black hating etc. Everyone hated them regardless of how they played. They were a physical side who beat up others unlike the glorious french who would play magnificently glourious rugby which would end in defeat.
 
The haka was a laughing stock until the 80s. A bunch of gawky white guys doing a tribal dance similar to everyone else's da dancing at a wedding. Thank Buck Shelford for the transformation.

   

fa0019 wrote:Over a century when 1 team wins 21 matches and the other 18 you can hardly call it domination... but slightly ahead of a 2 way tug of war.
 
People didn't like the boks mainly because of the way SA was portrayed for years, apartheid loving, black hating etc. Everyone hated them regardless of how they played. They were a physical side who beat up others unlike the glorious french who would play magnificently glourious rugby which would end in defeat.
 
The haka was a laughing stock until the 80s. A bunch of gawky white guys doing a tribal dance similar to everyone else's da dancing at a wedding. Thank Buck Shelford for the transformation.

Thats so true   

Tana Umaga was the Haka King though...one in France in particular....i love to watch it.

To be honest I am over how people judge other teams and whether they deem them entertaining enough or not.

We just won a test series in cricket against Sri Lanka, and everyone and his horse is criticising SA for batting at 1.5 runs per over for 111 overs to save a test match against three spinners on a pithced that bounced and turned 90 degrees.

These same people lauded Amla in the previous test for setting a sporting target.

SA rugby falls under the same banner, "not entertaining enough"

Admittedly there are times when I am as frustrated when we ignore opportunities to counter or use the space available, but then we have been very successful in both those codes.

SO I reckon those who have only constant criticism and only look for the negative in other team can go suck on it.

Ah Bilt's i think most fans enjoy watching the Boks...i certainly do. I love their brutality, their sheer power. Their directness...when the likes of JP and Habana get the ball.

Too many people keep saying rugby must be open fast paced etc...nope thats just teams like Australia whose fans dont care about rucks and mauls and are all league fans any way. They have to be open games to entertain the fans.

England were always given that boring tag aswell...and whilst lancaster is changing it...im concerned that we are losing so much of our nastyness up front to be "athletic"

I want a couple of big nasty "bar stewards" in there at say 4 and 6.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah Bilt's i think most fans enjoy watching the Boks...i certainly do. I love their brutality, their sheer power. Their directness...when the likes of JP and Habana get the ball.

Too many people keep saying rugby must be open fast paced etc...nope thats just teams like Australia whose fans dont care about rucks and mauls and are all league fans any way. They have to be open games to entertain the fans.

England were always given that boring tag aswell...and whilst lancaster is changing it...im concerned that we are losing so much of our nastyness up front to be "athletic"

I want a couple of big nasty "bar stewards" in there at say 4 and 6.

I think the belief tat SA rugby has held on for so long that "a good big one is better than a god small one" does need revision.

Defences are better now than ever before, players are all big and not afraid to tackle, and even though your muscle men still do a job, there is now a need to "create" gaps, and that is where a good small one, or at least two of them in a back line can make a big difference to break the game open due to the fact that they are quick, agile, skilful and more creative.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

profitius wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
Look at Faletau and the Vunipolas in the UK.
 
Thats 3 guys from probably a tiny number of individuals who have become top class internationals. Its more than simply them being exposed to the sport from a young age.

How many Arabs or Indians have played for England? Probably none. Culture plays a big part in it. Only South Africans, New Zealand and Pacific islanders really care about rugby as nations.

Bar Monty Panasarr how many represent England at cricket?  Sorry very off topic, just curious

Assuming the question intended to mean "people of Indian/Arab descent" (since Panesar was born in that famous Indian town Luton ), there have actually been quite a few in recent times. Nasser Hussain is probably the most famous example, but off the top of my head there's also Saj Mahmood (played a few tests), Ajmal Shahzad (played one Test and a few ODIs, toured Australia in 10-11), Amjad Khan (played one Test, bit of a disaster this one if truth be told, and he was Danish anyway), Moeen Ali of course from the current team, Samit Patel (played several Tests and was for a while a regular member of the ODI and T20 teams). Can't think of any others off hand, but I may well have forgotten some.

Obviously going back (much) further you had the famous Nawab od Pataudi who's rather unique in that he played for both England and India...

You do know that Luton has a very significant Asian population? According to recent reports it's one of the only towns outside London with a white minority.

In essence different ethnic groups are suited to different sports is what we can get from that.
 
Boere are derived from the dutch (the tallest country in the world on ave.), live a very outdoors life often in rural settings and therefore continue to produce naturally big lumps well suited to rugby.  Its the same with PIs. They are naturally big and strong men... not sure what it is but if their historical diet is fish given their traditional island homeland... well there is a hell of a lot of protein in fish.
 
But sure... immigrants tend to club together (see Wimbledon & Saffas for instance), their kids play sport together and often follow their parents sporting and working preferences.
 
You Da likes cricket and is a chartered accountant? What are the chances you follow suit... we covet what we see every day.
 
I'm sure there is a lot of talent in the Asian population in the UK for rugby, the Sikh's for instance are giants. However without the history I imagine their kids only get into the sport aged 13-14 which is often too late bar the odd physical behemoth like Simon Shaw who picked up the game aged 18.

Saw some interesting stats on planetrugby: http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_9398320,00.html

The ones that stood out for me from a SA perspective are:

92 offloads by the Bulls. Lowest in the competition. Compare that to NSW with 231.

Average of 31 kicks per game by Sharks but also the lowest successful tackle percentage despite conceding the second to last amount of points.

59 tries conceded by Cheetahs. Highest conceded with an average of 3.7 tries per match.

Stats can only tell you part of the story but from a global perspective, I think Meyer would look at those stats and where the teams finished and draw the following conclusions:

1) A high intensity game using offloads and counterattacking leaves SA exposed on defence. Meyer will look at Ellis Park test last year to see confirmation of this.

2) A kicking territory game is not pretty but it is effective. Even if you miss tackles, you don't tend to concede points. It doesn't matter if your try scoring is not the best. Ticking the scoreboard over is often enough.

The problem is that there is no in-between teams in SA. The Lions had the best scrum with no real stars in their pack but proved too easy to beat. The Cheetahs are a beautiful thing to watch when on song but leak tries with glee abandon.

The Stormers and Bulls were disappointing but still finished higher than the Lions and Cheetahs. The Sharks with an excruciatingly blunt mindset finish the highest.

If the more attack-minded teams finished higher than the traditional SA teams of the Bulls, Stormers and Sharks, I would firmly believe greater pressure would be placed on Meyer to replicate that style of play. After the Ellis Park test, there were many saying a win with a more 'traditional' approach would have been preferable to a valiant loss.

Personally, I don't buy into this high intensity, free expression approach. That's a myth openly encouraged by NZ and Australia to get teams to afford them more space. The problem with NZ is that they are also adept to countering teams who play a more set-piece oriented approach. They aren't nearly as effective but they are still capable of absorbing attritional matches in this manner. That is helped by the fact that teams who play in this manner like SA are predictable in their approach.

What Meyer seems incapable of grasping is that there is a balance between these two styles of play that doesn't play into the hands of the opposition: principally, you are not left exposed on the counter attack and you put doubt into the opposition defensive line. It is not a matter of choosing one style over the other. It is a question of knowing which style to adopt at a certain given time and this is the strength of NZ rugby.

I can say first hand Dutch teams are extremely tough and physical, I have seen 3 Dutch teams play, a young junior team play an English team (u14) and they were similar stature, an U16 dutch team play a scottish team and they held a 10kg 4/5 inch advantage per man, and a senior dutch team play university team and again 10kg + advantage per man.

What all the dutch teams lack that ive seen is out and out fatties, those nasty grizzly tight 5's, and then any real flare from 10/12, they seem to be big and athletic but not confident ball in hand.

Bit of stereotyping I know, but it is interesting, think the Vissers...

Well if we're going for stereotyping, maybe it's not so much a stone advantage over teams but a stoned disadvantage. Great in the lineout as they are all tall not to mention high as a kite, but too clumsy for offloads.

But at the end of the game they're all happy... and keen to get some food into them.   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:

But at the end of the game they're all happy... and keen to get some food into them.   

Who isn't?

Frankly I was more keen on getting beer into me after playing. Eating's cheating...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Frankly I was more keen on getting beer into me after playing. Eating's cheating...

I can't remember the last time i took the field without a few beers beforehand, it may be cheating but a greasy pie at half time doesn't half do the trick!

Don't mention pies. You just can't get them in Spain.   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Don't mention pies. You just can't get them in Spain.   

Holiday in Scotland or Lancashire, it's their fruit and veg!

We've even played a 'Pie shield' where every 7 minutes (or nearest break in play) you have to eat a pie before restarting, you have 30 seconds.

You havn't seen anything until you watch a pack scrum down dribbling crust lol

fa0019 wrote:RW
 
Actually you make a good point.
 
NZ did not dominate the sport in the amateur era. They were level if not slightly behind the springboks who had a winning record against every team up to professionalism.
 
When the game went professional in 1996 the boks had played NZ 42 times. They had won 21 and lost 18. SA had a better home % win and a better away % win rate than NZ. They had also won a series away in NZ which NZ only achieved in 1996 (8 months into professionalism). Each had won a world cup.
 
In terms of who was the best team in history up until professionalism in 1996... if it was anyone, it was the springboks end of. You can give reasons etc into why they lost but it doesn't take away the fact that the best team of the 20th century was the boks.

I think NZ and SA had bragging rights over one another in one thing but not another, much like today. I must say I think it is quite appropriate given the great stats of the two. SA didn't lose a series for 60 years and that is quite remarkable. NZ's 76% test ratio and roughly 84% vs all comers ratio is ridiculous and you'd struggle to find better winning stat for a team of that scale.

In the amateur era I think NZ had a better win percentage vs all comers, but SA had the edge in the NZ vs SA battle (which NZ was obviously obsessed with-enough to mix sport and politics to a degree which threatened the very sport itself in NZ). So honours shared there. Of course in the pro era it's pretty much the same in that honours are shared. NZ has increased its win percentage in the professional era but SA has a better WC record (again something NZ obsessed over lol).

I think NZ's basic skills give it the edge over every country-more so than the genetics of the region, and it shows no sign of abating. But it is a game where physical dominance is rewarded, and teams can see the benefits of such a physical approach limiting a skills oriented opposition. I don't ever want to see the game stifle the basic run, catch and pass skill set that gets me out of my seat. (Side note-I don't want the set pieces, ruck and maul to stop rewarding technique either) I'm sure if NZ got to the point of being dominated physically continually to the extent that their history and stats take a hiding that NZ in general may lose interest (sour grapes would definitely play a part lol). But even if that happens I can't see teams having such a physical edge over NZ that completely swamps the edge NZ have in basic skills.

The past is the past, no use living off old glories, we are second best to NZ and I hate it, simples.

I'm not so sure Disney. I think the PI influx has been monumental in NZ's fortunes myself.
 
Without the huge influx of talent of PI players (mainly through migration of their parents granted... much like the large number of ancestral black Carribbean footballers in the England squad) they have been able to excel past their peers whereas before they were fighting neck and neck with them.
 
PI chaps are simply born to play rugby. Near perfect with a professional set up be it in NZ or AUS and as we see it in the UK with Faletau, Tiulagi and the Vunipola brothers.
 
Without the PI influx I don't think they would have been as dominant... its certainly not the basic skills  at least solely as you mention as if so then demographics would surely be the determinant of players...i.e. 80% white population, probably 80% white players give or take. Thats not the case.
 
American Samoans are 40 times more likely to secure an NFL contract than white americans. Its ridiculous. These guys are born rugby players.

For every Michael Jones or Julian Savea, you could name a few more players who didn't make the grade. Just because Jamaica rules the 100m at the moment doesn't mean that all Jamaicans are born to sprint.

I'm not denying NZ hasn't benefited from its role as a Polynesian and Melanesian hub. Let's not fall into the trap of thinking this kid eats taro so he must be a rugby prodigy.

Nice title OP, broken record, very true 

Oh dear but not being pedantic FAO,the 20 th century finished in 1999 and while what you say is true up to a point upto 1995.
It does blur the facts a bit only in the period 1937-54 could you claim supremacy Lions
sharing series 1955,losing to NZ 1956,France first home series loss 1958.
In the 1960`s Boks were in free fall recovered enough to win 2 home series v NZ BUT
were mullered by the Lions 1974 and lost or drew to every NH side bar France they met in that decade.
In the period 1996-9 Boks played Nz 1992 0-1,1994 0-1-2,1995 1-0,1996 1-4,1997 0-2,
1998 2-0,19991-2.Grand total for the century 25-26 NZ.
So actually NZ won that century too,of course that is to much of a simplification BUT
IF you make swinging statements get them RIGHT.